Global Warming The debbil made me do it

Dan wrote in news:8d2a3003-7e26-4b20-b8fb-
:

On Mar 11, 8:52 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:

The American semi-educational system + religion + rightwing talk
radio.
It's a deadly combination.

He's a Creationist, too, bless his heart.

OK, this is a completely different topic than Global Warming, but
annoying in its own right.

You make statements like this and then wonder why no one wants to
engage you in "discussion."

I respectfully submit that there are many honorable people who do not
share your "opinion" on many topics -- religion, creation, global
warming, the role of science, and even politics, and that you betray
your own liberal virtues by dismissing such out of hand.


No one dismisses creationism as a possibility, its just that the
evidence for it is not there. Not even Chris Hutchins, richard Dawkins
or Jay Stephens say that it is impossible. What they do say is that the
evidence does not point to it in any way shape or form and that the
people trying to "prove" it's likely are beginnning with a premise and
trying to make the evidence fit that.
Similarly the evidence is pointing towards ecological messes of all
sorts from human activity. Looking at some in microcosm is an aid in
grasping the bigger picture. ( not that I think that anything I say is
going to make a blind bit of difference to anyoone who just doesn't want
to know) Anyhoo, for instance, the nile Perch was intrduced to Lake
Victoria years ago. The Nile Perch is a very big fish and very
nutritious. It can feed a lot of people. It was farmed in the lake for
the benefit of the local populace, but of course, some inevitably
escaped. The reproduced and thrived in the lake. The lake was previsouly
populated by small ciclids. Little 4-8 inch fish of various species that
have lived for millions of years in the lake and fill an ecological
niche that is as elegant as any to be found on the planet. The locals
have been fishing them for tens of thousands of years, too. They are
good eating and easy to prepare, only needing to be split in two and
died on a log in the sun.
Of course, the Nile Perch is thriving because it is eating all of these
little guys and the populations have been decimated. The locals, unable
to get a decent meal with a wading net, now have to fish the Perch,
whose numbers are also dpeleted because there aren't enough Ciclids to
keep them going. The Perch is a big greasy fish and needs to be cooked
over a fire, so there is now a new demand for firewood. Of course, being
tropical, the firewood is almost all slow growth hard wood so the
forests in the region of the lake ( which is bigger than most US states)
is dwindling partly because of this mess...
Just one more story. Of couse global warming will probably help these
people out in some way I haven't been able to imagine.

I'll leave hat invention up to Jay, eh?




Bertie

On Mar 11, 10:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

No one dismisses creationism as a possibility, its just that the
evidence for it is not there.

Reasonable people hardly ever dismiss everything out of hand.
Sloganeers and crusaders have to.

or Jay Stephens say that it is impossible. What they do say is that the
evidence does not point to it in any way shape or form and that the
people trying to "prove" it's likely are beginnning with a premise and
trying to make the evidence fit that.

I submit there's a corollary -- dismissing a premise because it
doesn't fit your cosmology/theology/philosophy.

Similarly the evidence is pointing towards ecological messes of all
sorts from human activity. Looking at some in microcosm is an aid in
grasping the bigger picture. ( not that I think that anything I say is
going to make a blind bit of difference to anyoone who just doesn't want
to know) Anyhoo, for instance, the nile Perch was intrduced to Lake
Victoria years ago. The Nile Perch is a very big fish and very
nutritious. It can feed a lot of people. It was farmed in the lake for
the benefit of the local populace, but of course, some inevitably
escaped. The reproduced and thrived in the lake. The lake was previsouly
populated by small ciclids. Little 4-8 inch fish of various species that
have lived for millions of years in the lake and fill an ecological
niche that is as elegant as any to be found on the planet. The locals
have been fishing them for tens of thousands of years, too. They are
good eating and easy to prepare, only needing to be split in two and
died on a log in the sun.
Of course, the Nile Perch is thriving because it is eating all of these
little guys and the populations have been decimated. The locals, unable
to get a decent meal with a wading net, now have to fish the Perch,
whose numbers are also dpeleted because there aren't enough Ciclids to
keep them going. The Perch is a big greasy fish and needs to be cooked
over a fire, so there is now a new demand for firewood. Of course, being
tropical, the firewood is almost all slow growth hard wood so the
forests in the region of the lake ( which is bigger than most US states)
is dwindling partly because of this mess...
Just one more story. Of couse global warming will probably help these
people out in some way I haven't been able to imagine.

I'll leave hat invention up to Jay, eh?

Bertie

We've seen species introduced worldwide with concomitant ecological
imbalances -- witness Starlings, English Sparrows, and Lake trout (you
must kill them in Yellowstone -- or be fined).

The underlying premise when these things are discussed is that only
humans can create imbalances, or that humans are "outside" or the
realm of what's "natural."

We're seeing the results of such "restoration to the balance of
nature" here in Pennsylvania, as the second growth forests mature and
result in near sterility on the forest floor. In a truly "natural"
ecosystem, there is constant destruction and recovery.

As we cannot afford unmanaged wildfires in our heavily populated
state, the game commission grants logging rights on State gamelands.
The result? Within 3 years there is a more diverse and healthy
population of fauna and flora.

Is this ecologically unsound?

I know it's been a few hundred posts back, but I am far from arguing
for unmitigated plowing of the ecosystem. What I have been arguing is
that the incessant over-the-top predictions of calamity are not proven
or assumed by --their own experts --, and that much of the hysteria
is driven by politicians and other hucksters who see opportunity ripe
for a power grab.

Dan

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 10, 10:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote
innews:bfb1179b-5270-447c-b02c-0f3dbb245e66@
m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:



On Mar 10, 7:32 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:

You've made a number of assertions in this thread, but you
haven't made a single substantive criticism of AGW science that
you would have to defend on
the merits. Why is that? I think I know, but perhaps you have
an excuse to
offer.

Since your the expert and I am apparently the dullard, please
help me reach your loft perch by answering this very simple
question: Will there be a 20' rise in sea level in the next 100
(or 200 years), or will there not?

Which is it?

Still nothing? Thought not.

But I'll hold up my side of the conversation, at least.

The answer to your question is "I don't know."

How's that?

Now, I've got a question for you: What convinces you there
definitely will not be?

I'm glad we're having a conversation (Life sometimes impairs my
usenet access, so you may have to wait for my replies).

I appreciate your candor.

This may help to explain the reluctance of apparently reasonable
people to jump on the GW bandwagon. The science -- while compelling
-- is still less than conclusive. The IPCC is peppered with terms
such as "likely" -- which while understood in the scientific
community, is not the the type language required to move millions
to action.

Hmm, you dont like science speak and you don;'t like hyperbole.

Waht about just looking at the data for yourself.

Bertie

I Did. See previous post.


That's not data, that's an opinion.

But I left out this part: "For the next two decades, a warming of
about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission
scenarios. --- Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and
aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming
of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. ---- {10.3, 10.7}"

Even if it's that little , that is a lot of energy.

In an essay supporting the consensus view, we find this gem, "The
scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted
for failing to act on what is not known."


I think I said something similar several posts ago, And the scientific
community would agree.

To which the answer is -- Yes we can be faulted for "acting on what is
not known." Especially since "acting" will have measurably harmful as
well as a host of unintended impacts.


You are acting, that is the problem. So am I I do it for a living and I
do it fo rfun.
Continued use of fossil fuels is action.


As far as sea level rise, consider "The widely quoted altimetric
global average values may well be correct, but the accuracies being
inferred in the literature are not testable by existing in situ
observations. Useful estimation of the global averages is extremely
difficult given the realities of space-time sampling and model
approximations. Systematic
errors are likely to dominate most estimates of global average change:
published values and error bars should be used very
cautiously." [http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/
Wunschetal_jclimate_2007_published.pdf]

I think I also said it maters not if sea levels rise or not. We've been
doing this for tooo long and there is no good reason for it except that
it appears to be cheaper to the short sighted.

Also consider: "Changes in the Earth's radiation budget are driven by
changes in the balance between the thermal emission from the top of
the atmosphere and the net sunlight absorbed. The shortwave radiation
entering the climate system depends on the Sun's irradiance and the
Earth's reflectance. Often, studies replace the net sunlight by proxy
measures of solar irradiance, which is an oversimplification used in
efforts to probe the Sun's role in past climate change. With new
helioseismic data and new measures of the Earth's reflectance, we can
usefully separate and constrain the relative roles of the net
sunlight's two components, while probing the degree of their linkage.
First, this is possible because helioseismic data provide the most
precise measure ever of the solar cycle, which ultimately yields more
profound physical limits on past irradiance variations. Since
irradiance variations are apparently minimal, changes in the Earth's
climate that seem to be associated with changes in the level of solar
activity--the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice age for
example--would then seem to be due to terrestrial responses to more
subtle changes in the Sun's spectrum of radiative output. This leads
naturally to a linkage with terrestrial reflectance, the second
component of the net sunlight, as the carrier of the terrestrial
amplification of the Sun's varying output. Much progress has also been
made in determining this difficult to measure, and not-so-well-known
quantity. We review our understanding of these two closely linked,
fundamental drivers of climate."
[http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/goode1349.pdf]

I've heard this argument before. It's chery picked and doesnt fly.



Threats to the planet are multiple and varied. Why haven't we
empowered an intergovernmental panel to combat tsunamis? Volcanoes?
Meteorites? Mudslides? Earthquakes?


Because we can;t do anything about them. We can do something about this.


But we won't.

There is no sin, no evil. Only stupidity.


Bertie

Roger wrote in
:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:50:24 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Roger wrote in
m:

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 20:54:58 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip

wrote:

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote in
:

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote in
-
sjc.supernews.net:

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

mariposas rand mair fheal wrote in
-
sjc.supernews.net:

In article
9ced5bde-8241-4ecd-9cb5-3948545b7571
@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
Dan wrote:

On Mar 9, 4:17 pm, mariposas rand mair fheal mair_fh...
@yahoo.com
wrote:
Dan wrote in
news:b6793e6f-a50d-49aa-ade0-caa8a027da37@
47g2000hsb.googlegroups.c
om:
However, the Anti-nuke crowd wanted the US to disarm
unilaterally. They also insisted that it was US
technical
advances and weapon fielding that was destabilizing.

so let me get this analogy straight

generation of greenhouse gasses are a weapon against our
enemies
(there always enemies - especially in an election year)
and disarming ourselves of this weapon would lead to our
anihilation

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness

No.

"Everybody must agree that there is only one course to
insure
our
survival!" rhetoric is consistently wrong.

everybody agreed that gaseous chlorinated fluorocarbons
were threat to our survival and very quickly (in diplomacy)
there was universal agreement on one course to insure our
survival


Actually, not everybody agreed. The same sort of idiot who
couldnt
see
that seems to have proliferated, though.

It's a mating ritual where like attracts like.
sorta like Democrates make more Democrats and Republicans make more
republicans. I think it's a race to see which one can produce the
most voters the fastest.


everybody who mattered agreed
mr smarty pants

True. Point is the idiots are at the wheel at the moment.

i wonder what would happen this summer if everyone goes to neijing
takes one deep breath
and then immediately turns around and gets back on the plane


Neijing would have considerably less air.

Cleaner too.

Everyone, take some home. It'd probably be the cleanest air
they've
seen in decades.


A bit PKB for someone from near enough detroit, eh?

PKB?

I'm a good 120 milesNNW (UPWIND) of Detroit where the summer smog is
created by the corn fields and swamps rather than industry. :-)) Even
the thunderstorms create more Ozone than we let industry put out.

Yeah, but thinndestorms know what to do with it.


Our streams have been cleaned up to the point where we now have black
flies. Nothing like the number in the Tundra, but the little buggers
still bite. Of course we make up for those lack of numbers by letting
our mosquitoes spread the West Nile Virus and a couple other nasties.

OTOH way back in the early 60's I once followed the smog
(foul...fowl...nasty smelling cloud) from an un-named company for a
100 miles and I could still see it clear to the horizon ahead from
5000 feet. Of course climbing that high and flying that far in a piper
Colt used most of my afternoon and meant I should head for a gas
station soonest so I never did find out how far that cloud went.
However the thing I found remarkable was at 100 miles the thing wasn't
much more than 3 miles wide. That ain't much dispersion.

I haven't seen one of those clouds in years and the smell has improved
remarkably as well. That is with one exception (sdtill many years ago)
when something spilled and killed all the bacteria in some setteling
ponds. GAWD but that was POTENT! And here I'll bet most people didn't
realize **** can spoile:-)) Of course you only need to be down wind
from a setteling pond at turnover time to become a believer.

AND accouding to official "State of Michigan" figures, our win


Yeah, but you had to create all that wealth to do the cleanup somehow.
And that came from making dirt.



Bertie

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:femBj.17334$TT4.376@attbi_s22:

Bob and Ralph.

Another evasion, I note.

You don't know anything about the science behind this subject, do
you, Jay?

Really, Dan, there's no reason to be rude. I just thought I'd lighten
you up a bit. To no avail, I see.

Well, anyway -- try this one on for size:

http://www.climateark.org/shared/rea...x?linkid=35203

It's from 2004, but the Iowa State study shows that any warming will
be strongest in the winter (good) and at night (good), and that
increased rainfall (good) will accompany any increase in temperatures.

Trust me -- any increase in winter temperature in Iowa is a very good
thing, indeed. And more rain with warmer temps will only make Iowa
bloom even more than it does now -- which is pretty hard to imagine.

I could go Google you some more studies, but it's really not that hard
to do. It seems that every Tom, Dick and Al has produced one.


You're a moron, Jay.


Bertie

Roger wrote in
:

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:05:12 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"John T" wrote in
m:

"Dan Luke" wrote in message


http://www.sourcewatch.org
http://www.realclimate.org

Not examples of balanced or un-biased sites. These don't help you
any
more than using http://junkscience.com would help me convince you of
the fallacy of your belief in AGW.



it's pretty obvious you won;t be convinced. I'm pretty much resigned
to
watching idiots like you sell my kids future down the Suwanee...

At least I'll have the pleasure of telling you I told you so in the
fulness of time..

At my age I'd like to be able to stick around long enough to do that.
OTOH with things accelerating as fast as they are I just might.

Well, exactly.

I don't think I'll make it to 2100 myself, but I'll do my best.


Bertie

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 11, 8:08 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:

That is the way scientists speak. If we are waiting for *certainty*
from them, our wait will be eternal.

But when a theory matures to the point that it adequately describes
and predicts the phenomenon under study, and contending explanations
do not, then it is pretty conclusive. Is the theory of anthropogenic
greenhouse-driven warming as robust as the theory of evolution? No.
Is the theory of evolution "proven?" No. Are they both backed by
evidence powerful enough to convince the vast majority of scientists?
Yes.


Underlying any theory are unspoken assumptions. What annoys (yes --
annoys) skeptics is the unwillingness of the adherents to pull the
rocks up and evaluate the validity of the assumptions.


Therefore some reasonable people -- and I count myself among them
-- are reluctant to accept the premise that "there is anthropogenic
global warming and we can address its causes" because we know the
logical conclusion to the premise -- mandates and
government-controls on all aspects of human behavior.

All aspects of human behavior? Says who? There are alarmists on both
sides, wouldn't you say?

Read history --recent and ancient -- to see that governments are more
than willing -- nay eager -- to mandate controls on *all* aspects of
human behavior. Ask me for proof and I'll be happy to start at either
end of the spectrum.

Historical aside -- One of the assumptions of the founders was
protection from this very thing (See Federalist Papers, particularly
#10)


But we are now conducting a massive, uncontrolled experiment on the
only atmosphere we have. Should we just let it ride and see what
happens?

We *have* been living in such an experiment since humankind has
inhabited this planet. One of the assumptions of the pro-AGW theory is
that the the only variable is human activity -- and when certain
amplifying or mitigating data is considered (solar variation, volcanic
activity, deep ocean heat sink, atmospheric particulate matter of lack
thereof), it is always considered in isolation -- never in aggregate
in any of the IPCC or related publications.


People can always think of a thousand reasons for doing nothing. It
takes some will and imagination to confront a problem as complex as
this one. The easiest thing to do in the short term is simply to
deny that the problem exists.

Edmund Burke suggested that alterations to society should be
approached as one would "address the wounds of a father" -- tenderly,
carefully, lovingly, and with the intent to do as little harm to the
existing organism as possible. Sometimes this means not rushing in and
thereby doing more harm than good.

So my shooting every SUV driver on sight thing is not a runner?


In addition, we should stop "crying wolf" by raising alarms that no
one really believes to be true --

Good grief.


Bertie

Dan wrote in news:5df380bb-5c94-4c28-9f01-46e08afdce27
@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

On Mar 11, 10:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

No one dismisses creationism as a possibility, its just that the
evidence for it is not there.

Reasonable people hardly ever dismiss everything out of hand.

Took the wods tight out of my mouth.


Good luck now.


Bertie

Dan wrote in news:dd38ea4d-205f-47a3-96b5-
:

On Mar 11, 10:19 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

guess. That's all they do and all they ever have done. They may
disagree
with one another but fanaticism just isn't part of their rainbow..

Bertie

"Fanaticism" is usually defined as an unreasonable attachment to a
specific idea, cause, or belief.

I know.


All great advances in science broke the mold by attacking the status
quo -- see Galileo, Newton, Tesla, Faraday, Curie, Pasteur, et al.

Yep.
And what advance is imminent in this, exactly?

Each was pilloried in his/her day, and some past.

Yep, that's right.

Wonder which side of this debate they would fall on?

Bertie

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 11, 10:34 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:

OK, this is a completely different topic than Global Warming, but
annoying in its own right.

You make statements like this and then wonder why no one wants to
engage you in "discussion."

Doesn't look like it's stopping you.

You never miss an opportunity to be obnoxious, do you? I suppose no
one can deny your consistency.

I do dismiss denial of reality: creationism, for example.

Anyone who has access to modern knowledge and still believes Earth's
life forms were poofed into existence just can't -or won't- think
straight. Sorry if that's offensive, but that's a fact.

You're so steeped in your own philosophical miasma that you don't
realize how ridiculous your last statement is.

There is not a single "fact" established regarding origins. Science
cannot, will not, and has not done more than speculate.

That's right. but creationists do a lot more than specualte. That's the
problem.

Do go on about first causes. I'd be ecstatic to learn what the "facts"
are.


I doubt that very much.

Bertie